Brown’s Manifesto….Games age ratings and more censorship

The Daily Mirror reports on Gordon Brown’s Labour manifesto for next year’s likely General Election and details his plans for video games…..

Video games

Compulsory age ratings will be given to all video games.

The voluntary system will be replaced by a “new and strengthened system of statutory age ratings”, said the Prime Minister.

There has been increasing concern among MPs at the way the British Board of Film Classification rates games.

Critics say that, in recent years, it has adopted a perilous policy of allow-ing practically anything to be seen by adults – and offensive material to be shown to children.

A review of the impact of violent films and games on children was headed by TV psychologist Dr Tanya Byron.

It is also expected that the public will be given new rights to appeal against the rulings of the BBFC.

“Critics say that, in recent years, it has adopted a perilous policy of allow-ing practically anything to be seen by adults.”

Which goes to show that calls to increase regulation of video games and films is less to do with protecting children from potentially harmful material and more to do with stopping adults seeing things that the self appointed moral guardians don’t think adults should be allowed to see.

“It is also expected that the public will be given new rights to appeal against the rulings of the BBFC.”

But only the rights to appeal against rulings of the BBFC that allow films for release. The public won’t be given the right to appeal against rulings that ban films.
In esscence this would allow some members of the public the ability to dictate what other members of the public can and cannot see.

Mediasnoops backs new age ratings which will give parents the right information as to the content of video games so they can make (horror of horror for the moral guardians) informed decisions over what games to buy for their kids.

Of course the moral guardians won’t be happy until legislaiton is brought in that bans games they dissaprove of.

Inglorious Moral Deceny Crusaders

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/nwb.htm#MediawatchUK_3531

Very funny!

Fat stars blame bollox

What a wonderful message to send out to young kids who are worried about their weight…….

If you are fat you shouldn’t be able to be famous!

And we wonder why so many teenagers are starving themselves to be thin!

From The Daily Mail:

How chubby stars ‘are feeding the obesity epidemic’… by proving it is possible to be fat AND famous

By Fiona Macrae
 29th June 2009

 

Role models: James Corden and Ruth Jones are of generous proportions

Chubby celebrities are stoking the obesity crisis by proving it is possible to be fat and famous, doctors have warned.

Michael McMahon, an obesity expert and surgeon, said that super-skinny stars have long been blamed for fuelling anorexia and the reverse is true too.

The high profile of larger stars such as TV presenter Eamonn Holmes, comedian Johnny Vegas and singer Beth Ditto has shown that being plump is no barrier to success.

James Corden and Ruth Jones, of award-winning sitcom Gavin and Stacey, are also of generous proportions.

Professor McMahon, of the Nuffield Health private healthcare chain, said: ‘The increasing profile of larger celebrities means that being overweight is now perceived as being ‘normal’ in the eyes of the public.

‘We talk about the dangers of skinny media images but the problem actually swings both ways.’

Obesity cuts life expectancy by up to ten years and raises the risk of a host of health problems including diabetes, heart disease, infertility and some cancers.

There is increasing concern that bulging waistlines are being accepted as the norm.

A study published in the British Medical Journal last year found that obesity levels had doubled in an eight-year period but fewer people thought their weight was a concern.

Parents of overweight children are also in denial, with many dismissing dangerous levels of plumpness as ‘puppy fat’.

And research by Nuffield Health has shown that one in 12 British adults is so overweight that they could qualify for obesity surgery.

The group asked more than 2,000 men and women about their height and weight and used the answers to work out each person’s body mass index.

Plump: Beth Ditto proves that being overweight is no barrier for success

A BMI below 18.5 is regarded as underweight, above 25 is overweight and above 30 is regarded as obese.

Guidelines state that gastric bands should be considered for those with a BMI of 35 who have other health problems such as high blood pressure or diabetes and fitted in those with BMIs of 40 even if they don’t have other symptoms.

One in 12 of those surveyed had a BMI of 35 or above – potentially making them eligible for gastric band surgery.

This suggests that across Britain, up to 3.6million men and women are so fat that going under the knife is the best option.

Professor McMahon said: ‘If people continue to turn a blind eye to their weight problems, they will see their life expectancy considerably shortened.

‘The new research suggests that if the rise in obesity continues at this rate, the majority of the British population could be obese before the turn of the century.

‘Clearly this is a situation that cannot be allowed to happen.’

“Michael McMahon, an obesity expert and surgeon, said that super-skinny stars have long been blamed for fuelling anorexia and the reverse is true too. “

The suggestion by an obsesity expert that someone cannot be fat and famous will do more to fuel anorexia than super-skinny stars.

And that is what’s being suggested here. Overweight people should be ostracised from society and not seen on TV.

Would we be saying the same thing about other so called “undesirable” groups?

Maybe Christian nutters will start coming out and saying that gay celebrities is turning kids into homosexuals!

“The increasing profile of larger celebrities means that being overweight is now perceived as being ‘normal’ in the eyes of the public.”

No it means that society does not discriminate against people and ostracise them just because of what they look like or what lifestyles they lead.

Overweight people seem to be fair game! We can attack them and make them out to be terrible people. We do not do this with any other social group and quite rightly.

Young people today face enough confusion when it comes to issues over their weight without some self appointed health guardian telling them that being fat should stop them from being famous.

If young girls start starving themselves because they think they can’t be famous if they are a bit paunchy then this so called “expert” might want to consider where the blame for eating disorder lies.

Maybe it’s the self appointed health police who are fueling these health problems amongst youngsters.

Beyer gets in on some more Ross bashing

“But worries about work and money have not dampened people’s anger over the antics of TV’s Jonathan Ross.”

 

Or more likely the anti-BBC tabloid press are reminding them that they should be angry about the antics of Jonathon Ross.

  

Hey people forget about the fact that you’ve just lost your job, you can’t afford to pay your mortgage and your fuel bills! What you should really be angry about is Jonathon Ross and his mate Russel Brand making  a few prank calls to the guy who played Manuel in Fawlty Towers!

  

Oh and don’t get angry with those greedy bankers and corperate bosses who have created the financial meltdown that has resulted in you losing your job. You should be getting angry with that morally corrupting bastard Jonathon Ross who is the cause of all the ills in the world!

  

Yeah right on man!

  

From The People:

 

BRITISH SEX DIVES

We’re stressed, feeling poorer and now the recession is even hitting…

Nigel Nelson; Daniel Jones

Brits’ sex drive is falling quicker than a credit-crunched bank’s profits, an exclusive People survey reveals today.

 

Love is one of the big losers in the recession as a quarter of people admit they are having less nookie than a year ago.

 

Fewer than one in ten claim they are having more sex.

 

 

Bedroom blues are part of the toll in a worried nation where a fifth of people are more fearful of the future and more than a half have less money than they did.

 Stress over debt and job prospects may also be part of the reason for 13 per cent of people saying they are having more rows with their partners.

 

 The YouGov survey for The People shows Tories with a 16 point lead over Labour – but surprisingly the prospect of regaining power has done little to boost their sex drive. Only eight per cent of Conservatives are bonking more than last year.

 

 That compares to libidinous Lib Dems on 12 per cent with Labour voters trailing on seven.

 

 Financial worries seem to be bothering older voters more – with 57 in 100 of over-45s saying they have money troubles. One in five of those questioned think they might lose their jobs – with the figure rising to more than a quarter of those in the 45-54 age group.

 

 But worries about work and money have not dampened people’s anger over the antics of TV’s Jonathan Ross.

 

 Nearly nine out of ten people who took part in our survey think the presenter should be sacked or at least take a pay cut.

 

 About 37 per cent want Ross, 46, booted out of the BBC while half think that if he does stay his £6million-a-year salary should be slashed.

 

 It shows the public has not forgiven him for taunting Fawlty Towers veteran Andrew Sachs. Ross and comic Russell Brand were forced to apologise last October after thousands of people complained about “prank” calls broadcast on Brand’s Radio 2 show.

 

 MediaWatch-UK director John Beyer said: “It was unacceptable and should not have been aired. Everyone thought that from Gordon Brown down.

 

 ”The People’s poll results show a backlash against Ross’s involvement in the Sachs affair.

 

 ”There is a feeling that he is not best suited to be on mainstream channels like Radio 2 and BBC1 with his antics.

 

 ”But I am surprised that so many have come out against him. He does have his fans, particularly among the young – and that is why the BBC have paid so much to hold on to him “However Brits are clearly also upset at Ross’s huge pay packet as well as his behaviour. They cannot see the value of that level of pay for the type of performer he is.”

 

 The survey also showed that foreign holiday bookings may not be as badly hit as tour operators fear.

 

 Last year 36 in a 100 people took their breaks in Europe. That will be down this year but only by one per cent.

 

 And there is a one per cent rise in the number of people who are heading outside Europe.

 

 ”It was unacceptable and should not have been aired. Everyone thought that from Gordon Brown down.”

 

Everyone, including Gordon Brown thought that it should not have been aired after they were told about it by The Mail On Sunday.

 

“There is a feeling that he is not best suited to be on mainstream channels like Radio 2 and BBC1 with his antics.”

 

Yes because channels like Radio 2 and BBC1 should only allow performers who appeal to the likes of Beyer and his middle England chums. Of course!

 

Of course the issue over whether the BBC paying huge sums to it’s stars is value for money is a worthy one. But that can be decided after looking at the viewing figures.

 

The BBC shouldn’t get rid of Ross or cut his salary just because middle England don’t like him.

 

 

Miranda Suit offended by mobile porn

Self appointed moral guardians like Miranda Suit keep up the pretence of concern for children when trying to prevent acsess to things they don’t like.

From the Daily Mail:

Fury as Apple allows teenagers to buy porn for their iPhones

By Claire Bates
25th June 2009

Family campaigners are furious over a new Apple application which allows teenagers to access softcore pornography via the popular iPhone.

Dubbed ‘iPorn’ it is the first time the country’s one million iPhone users can view such images with an application approved by the computer company.

The ‘Hottest Girls’ package, which costs little more than a cup of coffee at £1.19, is an X-rated version of an older application that used to offer bikini and lingerie shots.

Previously users have been able to download softcore content from the web on to the iPhone but this is the first time such images have been available with Apple’s permission.

The application is rated for those aged 17 and over, although this relies on teenage iPhone users telling the truth about their age when they sign up to the App Store.

Parents in the know can set controls on the new iPhone3GS that will stop the controversial app appearing.

Miranda Suit, co-founder of the voluntary watchdog MediaMarch told MailOnline she was appalled.

‘We are very concerned about the mainstreaming of pornography,’ she said.

‘It is being packaged in a tempting way and will be disastrous for youngsters who are not equipped to deal with such content.

‘And what about the growing number of sex addicts? I know of cases where they are trying to avoid certain films and magazines, but now even their phone will be a risk for them.

‘We urge the Government to look at the affect pornography has on children and vulnerable adults.’

Those who download the application will be able to save their ‘favourite’ images to their photo library, send them to their friends and set them as images for phone contacts.

‘We are very concerned about the mainstreaming of pornography,’ she said.

The mainstreaming of pornography? It’s very easy for the likes of Miranda Suit to see pornography as being mainstream when they regard anything with the slightest whiff of sex as hardcore porn.

“And what about the growing number of sex addicts? I know of cases where they are trying to avoid certain films and magazines, but now even their phone will be a risk for them.”

Saints preserve us! These sex addicts will be forced to watch sex and porn on their phones! We must ban it for their own good! Of course!

So because some people are addicted to sex everyone else should be stopped from looking at it? Guess that means because some people are addicted to alcohol everyone else should be stopped from having a drink.

‘We urge the Government to look at the affect pornography has on children and vulnerable adults.’

Concern for children and vulnerable adults (You are looking at things that we don’t like? You must be mentally ill! by the anti-porn lobby is a front for their true agenda which is attemtping to stop people looking at sex because they find it tasteless.

 

 

BBC bows to Tory press

BBC bows to viewers! Yes because as we all know Tory voting middle England represents every viewer in the country!

The BBC have in fact bowd to the right-wing Tory press who have an agenda against them.

We notice that Beyer is absent from all newspaper reports on this story. Yep, because there’s nothing for him to winge about.

From The Daily Telegraph:

BBC bows to viewers and curbs swearing after 9pm watershed

The BBC is to tone down the amount of sex and swearing screened following the 9pm watershed, because viewers were dismayed by the moral decline in programme standards.

 

By Anita Singh and Urmee Khan
Published: 9:47PM BST 24 Jun 2009

Mark Thompson said it ‘does not make sense’ to disclose fees for individual stars Photo: PA

In a sign that the BBC’s policy of pushing back the boundaries was out of step with public attitudes, its own survey found that viewers condemned the proliferation of foul language and offensive content.

Responding to the largest piece of audience research ever undertaken by the BBC, the BBC Trust said it had asked Mark Thompson, the director-general, to consider broadcasting the most offensive language between 9pm and 10pm only in “exceptional” circumstances.

The BBC is now planning an about-turn in several areas of editorial policy. The 9pm watershed will no longer be regarded as a cut-off point after which audiences can be subjected to swearing and sexual content.

Strong language may be “bleeped out” regardless of whether or not the show is broadcast after 9pm. Programmes will be obliged to carry warnings of potentially offensive content at all times of the day.

Viewers said the BBC should be regarded as upholding standards in British broadcasting, but instead had stooped to the level of its commercial rivals.

Friday Night With Jonathan Ross, Mock The Week and The Chris Moyles Show on Radio 1 were all singled out for criticism.

The research was commissioned in the wake of a scandal involving Ross and Russell Brand, who made a series of obscene phone calls to Andrew Sachs, the Fawlty Towers actor, during a Radio Two broadcast. Their behaviour prompted more than 40,000 complaints, cost Brand his job and led to Ross being suspended for three months.

The survey of 2,700 people, aged 11 and above, found that older viewers in particular were offended by a decline in standards.

Mr Thompson has made great play of the need to produce “risk-taking” television and radio, but one respondent to the survey, a woman in her seventies, spoke for many when she said: “The BBC has always been a leader, but now the wrong way.”

In recent years, swearing has become increasingly commonplace on BBC channels, but the research found that even young viewers believed it had gone too far. One man in his twenties said: “I swear when I’m in the pub with my mates, but I’d never swear in front of my mum. I’d hate it if the BBC just gave up on the idea that you don’t swear in certain situations.”

Viewers also expressed concern about pre-watershed programmes, including EastEnders, which often dealt with adult themes. An episode of Holby Blue, a BBC One drama, featured scenes of “aggressive” sex, which even the teenage respondents considered too strong.

David Liddiment, a BBC Trustee, said: “Audiences clearly expect the highest standards from the BBC, and BBC One in particular. The Trust is determined that those standards are met and the new research published today will help deliver this.”

Critics said the recommendations were long overdue. Ann Widdecombe, the Tory MP, said: “It’s appalling the BBC has not realised this before. It has taken the Ross and Brand saga for the BBC to understand the public outrage. The BBC is very arrogant and thinks that everyone shares its opinions about what is acceptable, when the public clearly does not. It has to reduce bad language, implement the watershed, not put stuff before 9pm that most of us do not want to see and show families that are ‘together’ instead of drug taking, broken and dysfunctional.”

Richard Lindley, the chairman of Voice of the Listener & Viewer which represents consumer interests in broadcasting, said: “People need to be told about exactly the kind of programmes they are going to be watching. They don’t expect a post-watershed programme not to have swearing but our viewers and listeners don’t expect gratuitous language done for the sake of it.”

The BBC arn’t really cutting the amount of swearing and offensive content in order to appease viewers. They doing it to stave off further attacks from the Tory press who following the Brand/Ross/Sachs uproar will use the slightest indescretion in order to slaughter the BBC and the so called “lefty liberals” who apparently run it.

The BBC have run various surveys asking viewers their views on taste and decency and they have come back with different results. It’s doubtful they are reacting to any concreate mass opinion amongst viewers or to any mass public concern about declining moral standards in broadcasting.

Remember the whole issue over swearing and offensive content on the BBC would never have become such a big thing had the tabloid press not turned the Brand/Ross/Sachs affair into a national scandel for their own ends.

It was the tabloid press who made the issue of swearing on TV a big issue and suddenly members of the public were apparently ever so concerned about it.

Politicians jumped on the bandwagon when they saw that the tabloid press were making a big thing about swearing and offensive programmes and each tried to outdo each other with grandiose promises to make the BBC and other brodcasters “clean up their act”.

Critics said the recommendations were long overdue. Ann Widdecombe, the Tory MP, said: “It’s appalling the BBC has not realised this before. It has taken the Ross and Brand saga for the BBC to understand the public outrage. The BBC is very arrogant and thinks that everyone shares its opinions about what is acceptable, when the public clearly does not. It has to reduce bad language, implement the watershed, not put stuff before 9pm that most of us do not want to see and show families that are ‘together’ instead of drug taking, broken and dysfunctional.”

Oh do give over Widecombe! The BBC are doing what you and all your Tory friends want but yet you still take the opportunity to bash them.

Mediasnoops wonders what the BBC can ever do to please their houlier than thou right-wing critics.

24 hour Christian programmes, followed by a ban on anything that shows Islam or homosexuality in a positive light, then news programmes that proclaim everything about Britain, America, Israel and the West is great and that Tory politicians are all angels and anyone who disagrees is a wet PC lefty liberal blah blah blah blah blah!

Oh and let’s not forget regular discussion programmes where everyone agress that all immigrants and asylum seekers are scrounging, terrorist disease spreading wretches and that gay marriage is only something believed by musli eating Guardian readers.

“and show families that are ‘together’ instead of drug taking, broken and dysfunctional.”

In other words don’t show life as it is for a lot of ordinary people. Yeah great!

“It has taken the Ross and Brand saga for the BBC to understand the public outrage.”

No, it has taken the Ross and Brand saga for the BBC to understand how much the right-wing press and it’s Tory allies want to destroy them.

“The BBC is very arrogant and thinks that everyone shares its opinions about what is acceptable, when the public clearly does not.”

Arrogance permiates amongst Tory politicians and self appointed moral guardians who believe everyone shares their opinions about what is and is not acceptable and what people should and should be allowed to see and hear.

At the end of the day the BBC are cutting swearing and that in order to keep the tabloid press and Tory politicians off their backs.

They are reacting more to the constant attacks by those who have an agenda against them rather than what viewers want.

Miranda Suit debates Antichrist

Mediamarch self appointed moral guardian Miranda Suit was on The Moral Maze on Radio 4 last night debating whether films featuring explicit violence and mutilation should be shown in cinemas.

You can listen to the debate here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00l5hhy

Ms Suit quoted a lot of subjective evidence which apparently links screen violence to real life violence.
But she struggled to convince anyone that watching violence on screen turns normal people into raging psycotic killers.

Which niether she or any of her self appointed moral guardian friends can do.

BBFC should have banned Antichrist says Beyer

“Films of this sort, with such extreme content, should not be classified for public exhibition anywhere.”

We love it when Beyer demonstrates his belief that he knows what is and is suitable for grown adults to see.

All the usual self appointed moral guardians are using the release of Antichrist as a good excuse to bash the “liberal” BBFC.

No doubut Julian Brazier, along with Beyer’s support will use it as jusfication to relaunch his Public Accountability Bill bid.

Oh and it goes without saying that now Beyer has more or less said Antichrist should be banned it will probably make it a hit!

From the Telegraph courtesy of the Melon Farmers:

Controversial Antichrist film with uncut scenes of torture and pornography

A film described as “an abomination” which features scenes of torture and pornography is to be shown in its entirety when it is released in cinemas next month.
 

By Roya Nikkhah
21 Jun 2009

Antichrist, which includes graphic unsimulated sex and a scene of genital self-mutilation, has been authorised for release with no cuts by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).

The decision to allow the film a release with even the most explicit scenes included has proven controversial.

Directed by maker Lars von Trier the cult Danish film maker, and starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the film depicts a couple grieving for the loss of their son, who falls to his death from a window while they are having sex.

They retreat to the countryside in order to recuperate, but Gainsbourg’s character becomes increasingly unstable and determined to take revenge on her husband for the tragedy.

In one scene, she is shown drilling a hole through his leg with a bit and brace and in another, she hits his genitals so hard that he falls into a coma.

In perhaps the most shocking scene of the film, Gainsbourg’s character performs an act of genital self-mutilation with a pair of scissors.

The film, which is released on July 24, has been rated “18″ by the BBFC, and will be promoted before its release with trailers rated “15″, prompting fears that many under-18s will watch the film.

Last week, the BBFC caused controversy when it gave Bruno, the new comedy mockumentary by Borat star Sacha Baron Cohen an 18 certificate.

John Beyer, the director of Mediawatch-UK, which campaigns for socially responsible broadcasting, condemned the BBFC’s decision to give Antichrist a mainstream rating.

“Films of this sort, with such extreme content, should not be classified for public exhibition anywhere,” he said. “The BBFC should have declined classification and rejected this film.

“We all know that youngsters get into films that are not age appropriate and with a 15-rated trailer, it is being deliberately marketed at a younger audience who will inevitably see the film.

“When people are being entertained by mutilation, that is beyond the pale.”

In its extended classification guideline notes for Antichrist published last week, the BBFC acknowledged that two scenes of “violence towards genitals or genital mutilation” were particularly shocking.

“Even at ‘18′ the BBFC recognises that the scene will be shocking and offensive to some viewers”, it said.

In its general guidelines, the BBFC says that “works may be refused classification” if they include “graphic rape or torture” and “sadistic violence or terrorisation”.

The most shocking film in the history of the Cannes Film Festival, Antichrist, was met with disgust and derision when it premiered on the French Riviera last month.

Critics called it “an abomination” and “gross-out gruesome”, with one Hollywood critic describing the film as “easily one of the biggest debacles in Cannes Film Festival history and the complete meltdown of a major film artist in a way that invites comparisons to the sinking of the Titanic”.

Von Trier, who won the festival’s prestigious Palme d’Or award in 2000 for Dancer in the Dark, was booed when he attended the post-screening press conference for his new film.

Philip Knatchbull, the chief executive of Artificial Eye, which is distributing the film, said: “There is no doubt that Antichrist is a controversial film but it’s our duty as a distributor to present the works of talented directors such as Lars von Trier in their original form, exactly as the director intended.

“We fully support the BBFC’s decision to allow people to make up their own minds about this film”.

Julian Brazier the Conservative MP for Canterbury and Whitstable who has campaigned for more stringent film classification guidelines, said: “From the accounts I have heard of Antichrist, this does seem to be one more example of how the BBFC has given up on trying to regulate material which the majority of the public feel is offensive.”

Mr Brazier said that an “R18″ certificate, where films can only be shown in specially licensed cinemas or sex shops, would be more appropriate for Antichrist.

Films submitted to the BBFC for classification are usually watched by a group of “examiners” who view the material and recommend an age category, cuts or other actions.

According to the BBFC’s website, examiners “are drawn from a range of backgrounds including social work, teaching, probation, journalism, research, psychology and marketing”.

Films are then watched by “senior examiners” who ratify the recommendations from examiners.

However, in the case of Antichrist, the film was seen by the most senior members of the BBFC, including David Cooke, the Director, Sir Quentin Thomas, the president, and Gerard Lemos, the vice president.

Mr Cooke, said: “The film does not contain material which breaches the law or poses a significant harm risk to adults. The sexual imagery, while strong, is relatively brief, and the Board has passed a number works containing such images.

“This reflects the principle that adults should be free to decide for themselves what to watch or what not to watch, provided it is neither illegal nor harmful.

“There is no doubt that some viewers will find the images disturbing and offensive, but the BBFC’s consumer advice provides a clear warning to enable individuals to make an informed viewing choice.”

A spokesman for the BBFC, added: “The BBFC guidelines for ‘18′ rated works state that the more explicit images of sexual activity will not be allowed unless they can be exceptionally justified by context and the work is not a ’sex work’ whose primary purpose is sexual arousal. For these purposes, Antichrist is very clearly not a ’sex work’.”

Gainsbourg, the daughter of the British actress Jane Birkin and Serge Gainsbourg, the late French singer, won best actress at Cannes for her role in the film. She has defended von Trier against accusations that the film exploits women.

She said: “He is depicting women of course with violence and very hard sex and pain and suffering, but I don’t think that he is judging women in a negative way.”

Von Trier, who wrote the film while suffering from depression, has said of Antichrist: “The film does not contain any specific moral code and only has what some might call ‘the bare necessities’ in the way of a plot.

“In any case, I can offer no excuse for Antichrist. Other than my absolute belief in the film.”

“The BBFC should have declined classification and rejected this film.”

For what reason? That Beyer and his Mediawatch UK pals don’t approve of it and don’t think people should be allowed to see it? Oh of course!

“When people are being entertained by mutilation, that is beyond the pale.”

This goes to show that Beyer’s call for the BBFC to ban this film is based on his personal disgust at what people might be watching rather than any evidence of actual harm caused by people watching it.

Julian Brazier the Conservative MP for Canterbury and Whitstable who has campaigned for more stringent film classification guidelines, said: “From the accounts I have heard of Antichrist, this does seem to be one more example of how the BBFC has given up on trying to regulate material which the majority of the public feel is offensive.”

But if the majority of the public feel it’s offensive then they don’t have to go and see it do they Mr Brazier?

If the BBFC do ban such material they would be doing so just because people find the very idea of it offensive. That would be banning something on grounds of taste which we should never do.

In esscence they would banning films like Antichrist based on the public’s personal distaste for what other members of the public are watching.

And we all know that when MPs like Julian Brazier and their self appointed moral guardian supporters say “the majority of the public” they mean Tory voting Daily Mail readers from middle England who do not represent the majority of the public at all.

Both Beyer and Brazier are more or less stating the following…

We haven’t or won’t see this film but because we find it’s very existance offensive we want it banned so that nobody else can see it.

Thankfully that’s not how things are done in this country!

Keep the BBFC indepedent and moral guardian free!

In light of attacks by right-wing politcians and pressure groups on the British Broadcasting Corperations over the past year ago Mediasnoops today calls for the BBFC to kept as an indepdent body which is free from interference by agenda driven MPs and self appointed moral guardians.
The Tory MP Julian Brazier attempted to have a Bill passed through Parlaiment that would make the BBFC “more accountable to Parliament and the public”.
That Bill fortunatly failed but the uncut release of the controvesial film The Antichrist is likely to reignite calls to make the BBFC answerable to Parliament and could see Brazier, backed by the Tory press and pressure groups such as Mediawatch UK have a second crack at getting his Bill passed.
If this happened the BBFC would find itself answering to MPs who have deamed themselves the self appointed moral guardians of this country and could lead to a situation where politicians are deciding what is and is not suitable for the public to see.
We could end up with MPs deciding what films we can and cannot see at the cinema, what DVDs we can and cannot watch in our own homes and what video games we can and cannot play on our games consoles and computers.
The BBFC finds itself constantly under attack by Tory middle England because it passes films that they dissaprove of. The Daily Mail newspaper is forever bashing the BBFC for being a bunch of “wet PC lefty liberals” and allowing young children to watch “vile corrupting filth”.
The 12A certficate given to last year’s summer blockbuster The Dark Knight allowed the Mail and it’s Tory supporters to firmly stick the knfie into the “liberals” who apparently run the BBFC.
The Mail has supported the Brazier Bill and believes that the BBFC should be accountable to it’s readers who share their pro-censorship views.
Those of us who value free expression and free choice should deflect the constant attacks on the BBFC by right-wing middle England and back a BBFC which is independent and not dictated too by self righteous politicians and pressure groups who believe that they know what is and is not good for the public to view.
We need the BBFC kept independent and moral guardian free!

Beyer bashes BBFC as Cannes shocker is released uncut

The uncut release on Antichrist has provided right-wing middle England with yet another opportunity to attack the “liberal” BBFC. Beyer leads the charge!

Beyer regards the BBFC as too lax because it passes films for release that he believes the public should not be permitted to see.

From The Guardian courtesy of Mediawatchwatch:

Antichrist to be released uncut in the UK

As Sweden disbands its censorship board, its British counterpart passes the entirety of Lars von Trier’s Cannes shocker for viewing with an 18 certificate

 

‘The sexual imagery, while strong, is relatively brief’ … the BBFC on Lars von Trier’s Antichrist, which stars Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe

Could it be a sign that British censors have moved into a new era of tolerance? Antichrist, the psychological horror movie from Denmark’s arch provocateur, Lars von Trier, is to be released uncut in the UK.

1. Antichrist
2. Release: 2009
3. Directors: Lars von Trier
4. Cast: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Willem Dafoe
5. More on this film

The film, which caused consternation among many critics when it was screened in competition in Cannes last month, has received an 18 certificate from the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), despite scenes featuring erect penises, violent sex and genital mutilation.

“The film does not contain material which breaches the law or poses a significant harm risk to adults,” said BBFC director David Cooke. “The sexual imagery, while strong, is relatively brief, and the board has since 1990 passed a number of works containing such images.”

Film censors across the world have come in for criticism in recent years, notably in the US, where the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) was attacked in the 2004 documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which exposed the allegedly secretive nature of its decision-making processes.

Last week, Sweden announced that it will disband its Statens Biografbyra censorship board altogether in 2011, 100 years after it was founded. From then on, there will be no restrictions on films released in the country unless they break laws governing such areas as child pornography, although the current age-related rating system will remain.

Industry watchers said that Britain was unlikely to follow suit, however, as the BBFC is generally seen to be doing a good job. David Taylor of the anti-censorship group Melon Farmers, said there was no political will to end the pre-vetting of media.

“The BBFC are consistent and more or less only censor when they feel laws are being broken,” he said. “They are very responsive to questions and provide good transparency into their decisions. They are surely the best censors on the block at the moment.

“If you compare them with the arbitrary censorship from the likes of Apple and their iTunes store, there is no comparison. The BBFC are thoughtful with their decisions whereas Apple react to whatever they think is the aggregation of current political pressure.”

BBFC spokesperson Sue Clark said attitudes here were very different to those in the Scandinavian countries.

“In Sweden they have always said children can watch pretty much anything,” she said. “We take the view that parents make the decisions, and they want a system in place which allows them to understand what they can expect from a film they may be considering allowing their children to watch, so that they can make their own minds up.

“In other countries, such as the former communist bloc, they are actually putting new systems for film ratings in place, rather than disbanding them, so I don’t think this is the beginning of a massive trend across the world. We will have to wait a very long time in this country before people no longer care about ratings and don’t think they matter.”

She also pointed out that the MPAA was far more secretive than the BBFC, and was funded by the main Hollywood studios, while Britain’s censor is independent of both government and the film industry.

“They don’t have four websites, as we do, explaining the minutiae of the work we do,” she said. “And they have the dreaded NC-17 rating, which no one wants because it means that cinemas won’t show the film. Over here, if you’re making a horror movie and you don’t get an 18, you’re probably going to be quite disappointed.”

John Beyer of Mediawatch, the successor to Mary Whitehouse’s National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association, suggested the BBFC’s increasingly light touch in recent years made it not so very different from the new Swedish organisation.

“The BBFC no longer ‘cuts bits out of films’ but provides information about films so that members of the public can make up their own minds about what films they want to see or avoid,” he said. “The Swedish government evidently want to do just what the BBFC has been doing for some years.

“In our opinion the BBFC has become far too lax in what it permits for public exhibition and there has been a gradual shift in what they regard as acceptable so that what would have been regarded as 18 a few years ago is now thought suitable for 15. Their 12A certificate allows very young children, accompanied by an adult, to see some very unsuitable material. The board is pretty much unaccountable and for this reason we supported Julian Brazier’s private member’s bill last year to make the board accountable to parliament through the select committee system.”

 

“The BBFC no longer ‘cuts bits out of films’ but provides information about films so that members of the public can make up their own minds about what films they want to see or avoid.”

Oh how disgraceful and disgusting! How dare the BBFC let members of the public make up their own minds about films they want to see?

Instead they should have John Beyer and Mediawatch UK making up the public’s minds for them.

“Their 12A certificate allows very young children, accompanied by an adult, to see some very unsuitable material.”

Oh yeah very young children, accompanied by an adult are being allowed to see explicit violence and hardcore porn! Yeah right!

“The board is pretty much unaccountable.”

Preety much unaccountable to Mediawatch UK and Tory middle middle England who believe they know what is and is not good for the public to see. Let’s keep it that way!